Today at 10 a.m. eastern begins the hearings to replace arguably the most partisan Attorney General in History. Loretta Lynch should be highly scrutinized to ensure she will not continue the shameful practices of Eric Holder. A number of questions that she should answer.
Jonathan Keim of National Review has a list of questions for Lynch including:
4. Will you adopt changes to the principles of federal prosecution that would eliminate prosecutions based on political considerations? The current Attorney General, Eric Holder, has been criticized for running a Department of Justice that is oriented toward partisan politics. Urgent action is needed to ensure that the Department of Justice will enforce the criminal laws against lawbreakers across the political spectrum, not just those who happen to be out of power.
As Hans Von Spakovsky and Christian Adams write:
Lynch has an obligation to answer questions about the decisions made by Eric Holder on a host of issues not only to provide guidance on how she would act as attorney general, but also because she has been a member of Holder’s advisory committee of U.S. Attorneys. It is entirely appropriate to ask her what advice she gave Holder on his many questionable decisions and whether she agrees with the legal positions and actions he has taken over the past six years. . . . .
Bias in Hiring
A devastating report by the Department of Justice inspector general in 2013 found deep polarization, mismanagement, and harassment of conservative employees as well as a litmus test imposed in hiring attorneys in the Civil Rights Division — namely, experience with liberal civil-rights organizations, which translates to experience working for the institutional Left. In short, only ideological allies need apply. As a result, the inspector general’s report found that the Civil Rights Division “passed over candidates who had stellar academic credentials and litigation experience with some of the best law firms in the country” and recommended that this litmus test be abolished.
Keim also asks a series of questions on the Constitution, one of which RNLA spent some time fighting.
6. Do you agree or disagree with the Obama Administration’s expansive view of its recess appointment powers? In NLRB v. Noel Canning, the Obama Administration expansively interpreted the recess appointments power to allow presidential recess appointments without Senate confirmation when the Senate was, by its own rules, not even in recess. The administration argued that the power provided a “safety valve” in the face of Senate “intransigence.”But even Justices Kagan and Ginsburg, perhaps the two most liberal justices on the Supreme Court, criticized the government’s position and joined the Court’s opinion rejecting President Obama’s lawless recess appointments
These and many more questions are important in the hearing today. Ms. Lynch needs not only to answer these questions but she needs to prove she will be the United States Attorney General and not the Democrat Party Attorney General as Holder was.